Skip to main content

Full text of "LHC physics: challenges for QCD"

See other formats




o . 

^ ■ Stefano Frixione 


^ . INFN, Sezione di Geneva, Via Dodecanese 33, 16146 Geneva, Italy 

OO ' E-mail: Stefano. Frixione© 

• I review the status of the comparisons between a few measurements at hadronic 

, colliders and perturbative QCD predictions, which emphasize the need for improv- 

ed ' ing the current computations. Such improvements will be mandatory for a satis- 

factory understanding of high-energy collisions at the LHC 

■ One of the main goals of the LHC will be the search of the Higgs bo- 

^ . son, the only piece of the otherwise thoroughly tested Standard Model (SM) 

QhI of which we miss experimental evidence. Regardless of the existence of 

Q^' the Higgs boson, LHC will likely shed light on the physics Beyond-the-SM 

1^ . (BSM), which should be within reach, as LEP results and solar and atmo- 

'"^ ' spheric neutrino data suggest. In this context, the role played by QCD may 

appear an ancillary one. However, this seems to be quite at odd with the fact 
^ ■ that LHC is a hadronic collider, and strong interactions will be responsible 

for a prominent part of the reactions taking place. On the other hand, one 
may claim that an accurate knowledge of QCD predictions will not be nec- 
essary for the discovery of - say ~ the Higgs in presence of a striking feature 
such as a narrow mass peak, which could give the possibility of normalizing 
the background directly with the data. However, if the discovery is based on 
a counting experiment, it relies by definition on precise predictions for SM 
backgrounds, dominated by QCD. These predictions will also prove essential 
for after-discovery studies, when the properties of the newly-found particles 
will have to be determined, or in the case of absence of BSM signals, in order 
to set limits on BSM scenarios. 

Having argued that QCD studies are one of the keys for a successful LHC 
physics program, one question remains: are there still motivations to keep 


on working on them? The answer is again yes. The question is legitimate, 
since the striking success of perturbative QCD in predicting experimental 
results may lead to think that the current knowledge is sufficient to tackle 
the problems posed by the LHC. Unfortunately, this is not the case: be- 
cause of the large energy available, hard reactions will occur in a previously 
unexplored regime, with peculiar kinematic characteristics, such as the si- 
multaneous presence of many, well-separated hard jets. These new features 
require to improve QCD predictions, either by increasing the accuracy of 
the computations, or by considering issues which could have been safely ne- 
glected up to now. Although one could give theoretical arguments for the 
improvements that need to be achieved, it is also instructive to look at those 
measurements which so far could not be described by perturbative QCD in 
an entirely satisfactory way, which in fact, rather than hinting to a funda- 
mental problem of QCD, indicate that a deeper understanding is desirable 
of some aspects of the computation. This is in fact relevant to the problem 
of QCD predictions for the LHC, since aspects which may be marginal in 
the current phenomenological picture will be much more important in the 

loO ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I 
5 10 15 20 25 

Pt (GeV) 

Figure 1: data versus theoretical predictions 

Let me start with what has been seen historically as a major problem 


in QCD, namely single-inclusive b production at hadron colliders: although 
NLO QCD appears to give a good description of data in terms of shape, 
the rate is typically underestimated by a factor of 2. Recently, this picture 
seemed to receive strong support from a CDF measurement PP, where the 
average of the data/theory ratio for mesons was quoted to be 2.9 it 0.2 it 
0.4. However, it has been subsequently pointed out [2] that this value is 
mainly due to an improper treatment of the theoretical prediction, and that 
the correct result is 1.7 it 0.5 it 0.5. This value originates from using the 
state-of-the-art computation for single- inclusive b Pt spectrum (FONLL 
and especially from the observation that the fragmentation function b ^ B 
as presently determined by using e^e~ data is not particularly appropriate 
for the case of hadronic collisions. It is interesting to note that the proper 
choice of the fragmentation parameters leads to a comparison between theory 
and data (see fig. ^ which is basically identical to that relevant to 6-jet 
transverse energy [^[3], i.e. to an observable independent of the details of 
the fragmentation mechanism. Therefore, b production at hadron colliders 
should not be regarded any longer as a reason of concern; on the other 
hand, the size of the theoretical uncertainties (solid band in fig. ^ prevents 
more stringent tests. It is likely that a major source of improvement in this 
respect would be the computation of the b cross section to NNLO accuracy; 
a further enhancement of the rate should be expected from small-x jOl EI 
and threshold resummations. Finally, let me remind that results for total 
rates for b production in ep, and 77 collisions are in such a disagreement 
with NLO QCD predictions, that no viable explanation for this discrepancy 
has been found in any BSM scenario. It is necessary to note that in many 
cases the experimental results are extrapolated to the full phase space from a 
rather narrow visible region. However, it is encouraging that in a few cases 
the data are also presented without the extrapolation outside the visible 
region, and in this way they are fully compatible with QCD predictions. 
This points out that some problem may be hidden in the Monte Carlo (MC) 
simulation of heavy flavour production, especially in the low region. 

Let me now turn to jet production at the Tevatron. The excess of CDF 
single-inclusive jet data [Sj over NLO predictions at large has been re- 
garded with much interest, being a potential signal of new physics. On the 
other hand, it has been immediately observed that, by suitably adjust- 
ing the gluon density in the proton, one can obtain sets of PDFs (denoted 
with the "HJ" suffix by CTEQ) which give a decent global fit, and result in 
predictions for jets compatible with CDF measurements. This proves that 
QCD has enough flexibility to accommodate the excess, but it is disturbing 
that the "HJ" family is not the preferred one according to a (unweighted) 


global fit procedure. This situation changes when DO jet data [TU] are in- 
cluded in the global fit, since the resulting PDF set turns out to belong to 
the "HJ" family (although it is not called accordingly). This happens be- 
cause the Bjorken x's relevant to high-px jet production are also relevant to 








DO data 0<T1<0.5 
— PDF uncertainty 

100 200 300 400 500 

100 200 300 400 500 

Figure 2: Data/theory ratios for single-inclusive jet production. From ref. 

small-px; large- r/ production, a region probed by DO (see ref. for a dis- 
cussion). The comparison between theory and data is now fully satisfactory: 
the left panel of fig. El presents the ratio of the DO data ^10, over theoretical 
predictions obtained with the PDF set CTEQ6M1 for reference, the 
ratios of theoretical predictions obtained with other PDFs are also given; 
the situation for CDF data is analogous. Although this excludes any evi- 
dence of new physics in this channel, the situation may still change. This is 
shown in the right panel of fig. |21 where the band represents the span of the 
theoretical predictions due to PDF uncertainties. Thus, single-inclusive jet 
measurements at the Tevatron clearly stress the importance of precise PDF 
determinations (which implies the necessity of using data from many comple- 
mentary processes), and of accurate estimates of the uncertainties affecting 
the PDFs. It is also worth reminding that there are at least a couple of 
unpleasant aspects of jet production at colliders. Firstly, by reconstructing 
jets using a fcx-algorithm, DO ^2] finds large discrepancies with QCD predic- 
tions, a fact difficult to reconcile with the observation that, at the NLO and 
for suitable choices of jet-recombination parameters, no major differences 
can be seen in the single-inclusive px distribution of jets reconstructed with 
the /cx or the cone algorithms. Although more experimental analyses with 
the kx algorithm are necessary in order to confirm the result of ref. jl2j . 
it is interesting to observe that hadronization corrections and the underly- 
ing event modelling, as simulated by MC's, affect fairly differently the jets 
reconstructed with different algorithms. Secondly, the ratio of jet cross sec- 
tions measured by CDF and DO at different cm. energies {V^ = 1.8 and 


0.63 TeV) and fixed = 2pT,/^/S, is not in agreement with QCD (which 
can predict this quantity in a fairly accurate manner); besides, CDF and DO 
data are also mutually incompatible at low Xt- However, the differences are 
largely within the uncertainties due to neglected power-suppressed effects. 
In both cases, it appears that the experimental analyses would benefit from 
a much deeper understanding of the interplay between perturbative and 
non-perturbative physics, both at the level of MC's (whose use to estimate 
the hadronization corrections applied to NLO predictions is rather empiric), 
and in the context of approaches analogous to that of DMW |13l I14| . 

O 1.5 



_^0.5 \ 


^0.5 \ 


▲ CDF 1800 GeV Data 
• CDF 630 GeV Data 

10 10 

Photon Xt 


NLO QCD (CTEQ5M) \s.=E^ 


■ DO daUi 

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.0 

0.1 0.12 0.14 

Figure 3: Comparison between prompt-photon data and QCD predictions 

Let me finally deal with the case of 7 production. One of the reasons of 
interest in this process is that, through the leading order partonic reaction 
qg 'jq, it can in principle constrain the gluon density in a rather clean 
way. This is even more interesting if one observes that the typical range in 
probed by fixed-target experiments is quite similar to the range in x^^^^ 
probed in moderate- and large-pT jet production at the Tevatron. Unfortu- 
nately, as discussed in ref. fixed-target photon data are not mutually 
compatible. This nowadays prevents the use of these data in global PDF fits. 
The problem is not peculiar to fixed-target experiments, since the agreement 
between isolated-photon data at the Tevatron and QCD predictions has al- 
ways been pretty marginal, as shown in the left panel of fig. Ol where CDF 
data are compared to NLO QCD results ^Zj. The situation, partly be- 
cause of larger statistical errors, improves for DO ^Sl) as shown in the right 
panel of fig. 01 (here, ratios of cross sections, rather than cross sections, are 
presented). It must be stressed that the isolation cuts used by experiments 


at colliders are unlikely to be fully equivalent to those applied in theoretical 
computations. The whole situation is rather inconclusive; if QCD predic- 
tions have to be used in the context of analyses involving photons, it is 
urgent to devise a strategy that allows one to apply the same cuts at the 
theoretical and experimental levels. For example, in a high-energy environ- 
ment experiments prefer to define isolated photons with narrow cones; on 
the other hand, it is known that the isolated-photon cross section at NLO 
becomes unphysical (being larger than the fully inclusive one) for small iso- 
lation cone sizes U^l- The computation of yet higher orders, and especially 
of the all-order resummation of the relevant terms, would be necessary in 
order to solve this problem. 

Although no major problem for QCD emerges from the phenomeno- 
logical considerations given above, the picture would certainly look firmer 
(not necessarily better) if we had: a) NNLO results"*^; b) resummed results, 
matched with fixed-order ones^; c) better determinations of PDFs and their 
uncertainties; d) better understanding of the interplay between perturbative 
and non-perturbative physics; e) better models for the underlying event in 
MC's. It should be clear that these issues are of primary importance for 
LHC physics: large numbers of hard jets (and large K- factors), strong im- 
pact of the accompanying non-hard events, and many-scale processes will 
occur plentiful. This is also worrying in view of the fact that MC's, the 
ubiquitous tools in experimental analyses, are not reliable when an accurate 
description of large-angle emission is needed. It seems therefore mandatory 
to add to the list above: f) better MC simulation of hard emissions. 

Items a)-f) are all tough problems, but it is generally believed, thanks 
to recent developments, that substantial progress will be made before LHC 
comes into operation. In view of its relevance to experimental collaborations, 
in the following I'll concentrate on item f). It is useful to briefly remind how 
an MC works: for a given process, which at the LO receives contribution 
from 2 ^ no reactions, (2 + no)-particle configurations are generated, ac- 
cording to exact tree-level matrix element (ME) computations. The quarks 
and gluons (partons henceforth) among these primary particles are then al- 
lowed to emit more quarks and gluons, which are obtained from a parton 
shower or dipole cascade approximation to QCD dynamics. To lessen the 
impact of this approximation on physical observables, one can devise two 
strategies. The first aims at having extra hard partons in the final state; 
thus, in the example given above, the number of final-state hard particles 
would increase from no to no + ng. This approach is usually referred to as 

^For certain processes and observables. 


matrix element corrections, since the MC must use the (2 + no + raE)-particle 
ME's to generate the correct hard kinematics. The second strategy also 
aims at simulating the production of no + hard particles, but improves 
the computation of rates as well, to N^^LO accuracy. I'll generally denote 
the resulting MC as N"eLOwPS. 

There are basically two major problems in the implementation of ME 
corrections. The first problem is that of achieving a fast computation of the 
ME's themselves for the largest possible no+ng, and an efficient phase-space 
generation. A variety of solutions exist nowadays for this problem, imple- 
mented in packages which I'll denote as ME generators. The second problem 
stems from the fact that multi-parton ME's are IR divergent. Clearly, in 
hard-particle configurations IR divergences don't appear; however, the def- 
inition of what hard means is, to a large extent, arbitrary. In practice, 
hardness is achieved by imposing some cuts on suitable partonic variables, 
such as Pt's and (77, (/3)-distances. I collectively denote these cuts by 6sep- 
One assumes that n hard partons will result (after the shower) into n jets; 
but, with a probability depending on 6sep, a given n-jet event could also 
result from n + m hard partons. This means that, when generating events 
at a fixed no + number of primary particles, physical observables in gen- 
eral depend upon 5s£p] I refer to this as the J^ep'bias problem. Any solution 
to the Jsep-bias problem implies a procedure to combine consistently ME's 
with different no + n^'s. It should be stressed that, in presence of a 5sep 
bias, the interface of an ME generator (which is responsible for producing 
the hard configurations, i.e. the initial conditions for the shower), and a 
parton shower code is not, strictly speaking, an event generator, since the 
events depend somehow on the value of 6sep- In practice, the dependence is 
of the order of 20%, which is acceptable if one considers that, without ME 
corrections, multi-jet configurations predicted by standard MC's are com- 
pletely unreliable. A solution to the Jsep-bias problem has been presented, 
for e'^e~ collisions, in ref. ^20"^ (CKKW henceforth), and subsequently ex- 
tended (without formal proof) to hadronic collisions in ref. Loosely 
speaking, CKKW achieve the following: if an n-jet observable is affected by 

5sep bias in the following way 


by applying the CKKW prescription one gets 

«r'(5.%+E^fc«siog2'"''^-p). (2) 



The implementation of CKKW in popular event generators for hadronic 
collisions in under way, and it will have reached a mature and well-tested 
stage when LHC will come into operation. 

The implementation of an N"^LOwPS can be seen as an upgrade of ME 
corrections: not only one wants to describe the kinematics of uq + hard 
particles correctly, but the information on N^^LO rates must also be in- 
cluded. First attempts at solving this problem have only recently become 
available, and only for the case Ue = 1. The striking feature of an NLOwPS 
is the computation of loop diagrams (which are necessary in order to com- 
pute total rates to NLO accuracy); this in general implies the presence of 
negative weights. This is a new feature in MC's, which however doesn't 
spoil their probabilistic nature. In fact, in NLOwPS the distributions of 
positive and negative weights are separately finite, at variance with what 
happens in NLO computations; thus, each of them can be unweighted and 
evolved separately, since no cancellation between large numbers is involved 
in this procedure. On the other hand, the contribution of loop diagrams im- 
plies that the 5sep-bias problem which affects ME corrections is simply not 
present. At the moment, the following codes implement different prescrip- 
tions for NLOwPS in hadronic collisions: $-veto MCONLO |2S1I211, 
GRACE_LLsub $-veto is based on the slicing method, and features 

Z* and W* production; it is affected by double counting according to the 
definition of ref. j23j . but numerically this problem seems to be of minor 
importance; it is interfaced with Herwig and Pythia. MC@NLO is based on 
the subtraction method, and features W~^W~, ZZ, WZ, bb, tt, SM Higgs, 
Z, W, and 7 production; it is interfaced with Herwig. GRACE_LLsub is 
based on the slicing method and on the fully-numerical computation of the 
matrix elements; it features Drell-Yan production, and is not affected by 
double counting only if the parton shower of ref. [25| is adopted (i.e., other 
showering codes cannot be used at the moment). The field of NLOwPS, 
still behind that of ME corrections, is rapidly evolving, and more ideas will 
appear in the future; soon, more processes will be implemented, and a thor- 
ough comparison between the various approaches will have to be made. 

In summary, a lot of interesting developments are currently occurring 
in QCD, which will provide a solid benchmark for LHC studies. It will be 
vital for experimental collaborations to exploit these results, both by using 
new MC tools (with ME corrections and NLOwPS) in the course of their 
analyses, and by considering the most precise theoretical results available, 
at fixed-order (NNLO) or in resummed computations (with NLL or NNLL 
accuracy). In the coming years, it will also be crucial to learn from the 
experience of HERA and the Tevatron, which will hopefully provide the 


necessary data to determine PDFs at an unprecedented level of accuracy, 
and to test the various models for underlying events. 

It's a pleasure to thank the organizers for an interesting meeting; as a 
phenomenologist, I think it is beneficial for both theoretical and experimen- 
tal communities to have frequent (elastic) interactions. 


[1] D. Acosta et al. [CDF C ollaboration], Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 052005 
ja?Xw:hep-ph/01li359l . 

[2] M. Cacciari and P. Nason, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 122003 
|arXiv:hep-ph /0204025] . 

[3] M. Cacciari , M. Greco and P. Nason, JHEP 9805 (1998) 007 
|arXiv:hep-ph /9803400] . 

[4] S. Frixione and M. L . Mangano, Nucl. Phys. B 483 (1997) 321 
|alxi7:hep-ph/9605"270l . 

[5] B. Abbott et al. [DO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5068 
|arXiv:hep-ex /000802l] . 

[6] S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B 366 (1991) 

[7] J. C. Collins and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B 360 (1991) 3. 

[8] F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 438 
rarXiv:hep-ex/9601008 . 

[9] J. Huston, E. Kovacs, S. Kuhlmann, H. L. Lai, J. F. Owens, 
D. E. Soper and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 444 
|arXiv^hep^ph/95 1 1386] . 

[10] B. Abbott et al. [DO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 032003 
|arXiv:hep-ex/0012046] . 

[11] D. Stump, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, W. K. Tung, H. L. Lai, S. Kuhlmann 
and J. F. Owens, JHEP 0310 (2003) 046 | arXiv:h ep-ph/0303013|. 

[12] V. M. Abazov et al. [DO Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 211 
|aIXiv:hep-ex/010904T] . 


[13] Y. L. Do kshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995) 451 
|arXiv:hep -ph/95 04219| . 

[14] Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini an d B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 469 
(1996) 93 arXiv:hep-ph/ 9512336| . 

[15] P. Aurenche, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet, B. A. Kniehl, E. Pilon and 
M. Werlen, Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 107 1 arXiv:hep-ph/9811382| . 

[16] D. Acosta et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 112003 
|arXiv:hep-ex/ 0201004] . 

[17] M. Cluck, L. E. Gordon, E. Reya and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 
73 (1994) 388. 

[18] V. M. Abazov et al. [DO Colla boration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 
251805 |arXiv:hep-ex /0106026|. 

[19] S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet and E. Pilon, JHEP 0205 
(2002) 028 |arXiv:hep-ph/ 0204023| . 

[20] S. Catani , F. Krauss, R. K uhn and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0111 (2001) 
063 arX iv:hep-ph /01092311. 

[21] F. Krauss, JHEP 0208 (2002) 015 |arXiv:hep-ph7 0205283l . 

[22] M. Dobbs, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094011 |arXiv:hep-ph701 11234] . 

[23] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0206 (2002) 029 
arXiv :hep-ph/0204244 . 

[24] S. Frixione, P. Nason and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0308 (2003) 007 
arXiv:hep -ph/03 05252 . 

[25] Y. Kurihara, J. Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, K. Kato, S. Kawabata, 
T. Munehisa and H. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 654 (2003) 301 
arXiv:hep-ph/02122T6l .